Michael Blake wants to revamp how NYC determines eligibility for affordable housing

Former New York State Assembly member Michael Blake plans to tackle New York City’s housing crisis by ditching a long-time metric that determines who qualifies for affordable housing—and replacing it with a measure for the “true cost of living.”

Blake is one of the many candidates running for New York City mayor. As the race heats up, Brick Underground is interviewing the candidates who—if victorious—will go on to shape housing development in New York City. 

The mayor will oversee city agencies that regulate landlords, the implementation of NYC’s landmark climate law, Local Law 97, and new construction enabled by the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan. 

In short, it’s a big job, and there’s a lot of candidates who want to do it. Brick Underground caught up with Blake last week to talk about how he’d tackle housing if he were to become NYC’s next mayor. 

If elected, Blake said he would use a new measure to determine eligibility for affordable housing: Local median income. Currently, income restrictions for affordable housing are based on area median income, which Blake criticized for including income data from upstate counties, which inflates rents. Blake also promised to eliminate credit scores for rental and buyer applications, and said he’d institute a tax on pieds-à-terre to fund property tax breaks for New York residents.

All candidates answered a quick series of questions about major NYC housing issues before going into detail about their own proposals. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

You proposed using the true cost of living instead of area median income (AMI) to determine income restrictions for affordable housing. Tell us more about that plan and how you hope it will impact renters.

First, we need to implement what voters approved. Voters, through the city charter revision process, said that they want to understand the true level of expenses for a family in New York City so that policies and income thresholds can be created. The fact that we still don't have that defined answer means we are effectively moving in the dark. 

You have to have a LMI, as opposed to an AMI. The AMI incorporates Westchester County and other upstate counties that are not applicable to challenges happening here, especially in the outer boroughs. Doing that would keep us aligned closer to what we saw in recent studies from MIT, which suggests that [the hourly living wage should] be at $69 an hour for a family with two children. 

How do we reduce costs for New Yorkers while also increasing their wages? To do that, you have to address the two fundamental expenses for families: housing and childcare. With a true cost of living index—which has been delayed by the mayor—and a local median income approach, you're able to accomplish that much more effectively.

When it comes to housing, development is often established by percentages of AMI. My approach using a local median income would provide a much truer assessment of what individuals in that neighborhood can actually afford, and be very intentional and thoughtful around expanding out the ranges. Doing those two things would then lead to more individuals being eligible for affordable units. Right now, a challenge that is happening across the board, people are effectively making too much, or they're essentially unable to make more to stay within the [income thresholds].

One of your other policy proposals is a guaranteed income. Would that help New Yorkers with housing costs?

Fundamentally, we do believe that for individuals—especially those that are at and below the poverty line...we should be taking all the steps for New Yorkers to be at a guaranteed income threshold.

[We can do that] through our public service jobs, and making sure that the rate, the wages, and benefits are equivalent or beyond living wage thresholds. And for the individuals who currently don't have jobs that are getting them to that rate, [we need to look at] steps to provide additional subsidies—whether it be through direct, one-time payments, or increasing a pathway to public service jobs that are currently vacant. 

I think there are very concrete steps that can be taken so that we are allowing and ensuring people make more money and keep more money in their pocket, through the elements that are in our control.

Now, of course, you will have those in the private sector who will say that they should not be forced to pay someone a particular wage, which of course you can't necessarily do across the board. 

However, if you're giving someone an incentive to build, what are we paying individuals who are working on said projects? If you are getting an incentive from the city, then there has to be an incentive back to residents—at the rates that they deserve.

How would you create Mitchell-Lama 2.0? How does your plan differ from other candidates?

Fundamentally, we go back to how it used to be back in the day when we were very focused and dedicated to building out middle-class housing. In order to do this now, we have to understand what is that range as middle and working class? We all aspire to it, but do we actually know the data? To do that, let's understand the range through an LMI, and let's then be very focused on building housing and having dedicated units for individuals within a set range. 

That kind of approach will not only make it easier for more people to stay in the city, it’ll make it easier for people to come back into the city. The Mitchell-Lama 2.0 vision is ensuring that we are building for the working and middle class who currently cannot afford to be here. It's that level of intentionality, of incentivizing developers to do it correctly within that range, expanding out our income thresholds, as well as helping people with better eligibility. Taking those respective steps is part of the vision for Mitchel-Lama 2.0.

You’ve mentioned that you want to eliminate credit checks for rental and mortgage applications. Would this require state support, or would you do this just in NYC? What do you hope to achieve with that move?

There's definitely going to be some state support that's needed here. But for anything within our control as a city, we should be finding every possible way to ban this very discriminatory practice, which fundamentally is a reason why so many New Yorkers are unable to get an affordable home—or even have a chance to get one. In the same manner that we looked at Banning the Box—giving people a second chance when it comes to criminal justice—we should also then be banning the “credit box.” 

You also have plans to improve lighting in public housing and do repairs at New York City Housing Authority buildings. What would you do to ensure that NYCHA has the budget for repairs, given expected federal funding cuts?

We should look at a vacant apartment tax for pieds-à-terre. If someone has an apartment here and it's not their primary residence, there should be a consideration of a tax levy on that individual so we generate revenue.

Second, we have to ensure that we're helping more of our businesses thrive, and increase sales tax revenue by addressing public safety. 

Then, we do need to seriously consider whether we have to go into our reserves to help with the crisis. We can't say to New Yorkers: “You're going to have to wait four more years for help because of the dysfunction in Washington, D.C.” What is the purpose of having a reserve if we're not seriously looking at utilizing it during a time of crisis?

Lastly, your campaign has a plan for homeowner tax breaks. Could you outline that for us?

I just think that we have to have substantial property tax reform right now. This definitely [would require] work and collaboration with our state partners.

People see their rates skyrocket without any real explanation. First, we have to explain to people what your property tax is going towards, in addition to a conversation around education. [We need] to give a clear, rational explanation of why your rates would be going up if nothing is effectively changing in your community. But then I do think we have to work with our state partners, collaboratively, to figure out ways to reduce the tax burden on homeowners. 

When people ask, how will we generate revenue [to replace] that lost revenue, I think it should be placed on the individuals who have a vacant home in New York City, as opposed to the ones who are here and doing everything the right way. 

Is there anything else you want to add?

I always remind people: my White House, state house, and local experience make me uniquely qualified for this moment. My family has experienced homelessness in Jamaica and very challenging times here in the city. Housing is very personal to me. When I talk about affordable housing, it is a central part of how I reimagine the city.

Editor’s Note: Brick Underground is interviewing candidates for the 2025 New York City mayoral election. If you’re a candidate and you’d like to talk to us, please get in touch.

You Might Also Like

Live Brad Lander pitches homesharing and co-ownership for city workers to ease the housing crisis

Neighborhood Intel Zohran Mamdani wants more union-built housing and to expand rent stabilization in NYC

Neighborhood Intel Zellnor Myrie wants to build one million housing units and fund more eviction attorneys